The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, U.S. District Judge
PRESENT: HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Rita Sanchez None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
On May 18, 2012, the parties were ordered to appear in person before the Court for a Rule 16(b) scheduling conference on July 2, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. (Docket No. 9). Plaintiff Stepan Vartanian did not appear at the scheduling conference on July 2, 2012, and Defendants' Rule 26(f) Report represented that Defendants' counsel were unable to meet and confer with Plaintiff or any counsel for Plaintiff prior to the deadline for filing the report. (Docket No. 11).
The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by no later than July 18, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to comply with court rules and orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Docket No. 13). The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to respond by that date would result in the Court dismissing the action with prejudice. Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause.
The Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to participate in the filing of the Rule 26(f) Report, attend the Court ordered scheduling conference, and respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause constitutes failure to prosecute or to comply with court rules and orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642--43 (9th Cir. 2002) ("In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits."); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989--92 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining the factors supporting dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute). Because Plaintiff failed to follow multiple Court directives aimed at the timely prosecution of his case, the Court concludes that the Pagtalunan factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action with prejudice. Plaintiff's failure to engage in the litigation he initiated hampers expeditious resolution of litigation and inhibits the Court's ability to manage its docket. Plaintiff has had various opportunities to prosecute his case or explain his non-compliance with the Court's orders, so a dismissal with prejudice does not unfairly impact his rights.
Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court rules and orders.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...